Returns the current toolkit state: installed MCPs, their connection status, the accounts connected to each one, and how many catalog tools each exposes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, establishing the safety profile. The description adds value by specifying the exact content of the state returned (MCPs, statuses, accounts, tool counts), which is behaviorally informative.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action ('Returns the current toolkit state') followed by a concise enumeration of contents. No filler or redundant wording.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values. It does so thoroughly by listing all major categories (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), making the tool's output predictable and complete for a low-complexity info tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds no redundant parameter information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Returns') and a defined resource ('current toolkit state'), enumerating exactly what is included (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog counts). This distinguishes it from action-oriented siblings like authenticate or connect.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate: whenever the agent needs to inspect the toolkit state. It does not include explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough to infer usage without confusion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Multiple tools have unclear boundaries: connect and toolkit_info both describe connection/status information, and marketplace is a catch-all that can invoke one-off tools, complicating the distinction from the direct CND consultation tool. The only clearly unique domain tool is pref_ba_juazeiro_cnd_consultar, but the generic helpers overlap with each other.
Tool names mix bare verbs like connect and report_bug with noun-style names like marketplace and toolkit_info, and the Portuguese-specific pref_ba_juazeiro_cnd_consultar follows a different convention. There is no consistent verb_noun or domain pattern across the set.
Seven tools is a reasonable count for a platform-support surface, so the size is not inherently bloated. However, only one tool directly serves the apparent CND-focused purpose, with the rest being generic platform/management helpers, creating a borderline scope mismatch.
The CND domain is essentially a single consult operation, and pref_ba_juazeiro_cnd_consultar covers that core workflow. The supporting tools provide enough auth/connection and error-reporting coverage, though a dedicated provider-specific workflow beyond that would be clearer.